|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
So are we just going to ignore a certain treaty signed by over 100 countries including Russia, and China? Also the fact that today's tech can't possibly do anything with this announcement.
Donald Trump said on Monday he would direct the Pentagon to create a “space force” as a new branch of the US military to shore up American dominance in space.
Trump claimed that the plan will ensure that America, which plans a return to the moon and a mission to Mars, stays ahead of China and Russia in any new space race. But it is likely to raise fears over the militarisation of space and prompted a slew of Twitter parodies featuring Star Trek and Star Wars.
“Very importantly, I’m hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” the president said at the White House.
“That’s a big statement. We are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force – separate but equal. It is going to be something so important.”
Trump asked Gen Joseph Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to carry out the assignment. Dunford replied: “We got it.”
The president added: “Let’s go get it, general. But that’s the importance that we give it. We’re going to have the space force.”
The president was speaking at the third meeting of the National Space Council, revived after a quarter of a century. He was joined by Mike Pence, the new Nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon.
But there was a sceptical reaction from Bill Nelson, the Democratic senator for Florida, home of Cape Canaveral. He tweeted: “The president told a US general to create a new Space Force as 6th branch of military today, which generals tell me they don’t want. Thankfully the president can’t do it without Congress because now is NOT the time to rip the Air Force apart. Too many important missions at stake.”
During his remarks, Trump promised that America will always be first in space and that national pride is at stake. “It’s going to be important monetarily and militarily,” he added. “But so important for right up here – the psyche. We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us.”
He insisted: “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. So important.”
Trump has floated the idea of a space force before but met both mockery and high-level resistance. Last October, his own defence secretary Jim Mattis wrote in a memo: “I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
On Monday Trump also signed a policy directive for reducing satellite clutter in space. It sets up new guidelines for satellite design and operation to avoid collisions and spacecraft breakups.
Source
|
On June 19 2018 04:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:On June 19 2018 01:23 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever. See, already we have disagreements at who’s the most biased and reports factual information. You’re wrong. Their opinion shows are just as bad. Their news reporting is just as bad and sometimes worse depending on the host. You’re just biased to believe your own side is actually pretty good, without looking critically at how they manipulate with half truths, outright lies, buried ledes, and opinion spin. That’s another reason why fairness doctrine can and would fail: no neutral arbiter; it’s all a matter of opinion. Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.
This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.
There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true. Yep. I can also show you instances on Fox where special report or Fox News Sunday went against Trump and mouthpieces. I’m no fan of the channel either. You’re just selectively playing Fox’s worst against lefty media’s best and trying to draw conclusions. And you’re failing. Similarly, debates of these type generally fall into pointless areas because defenders of left-leaning or left-wing media institutions refuse to admit or even see the problems in their ranks, but will point out everything on the right just fine. Partisanship from beginning to end. Years in office/Criminal Indictments/Convictions/Prison Sentences
Barack Obama
Democratic 8 0 0 0
George W. Bush
Republican 8 16 16 9
Bill Clinton
Democratic 8 2 1 1
George H. W. Bush
Republican 4 1 1 1
Ronald Reagan
Republican 8 26 16 8
Jimmy Carter
Democratic 4 1 0 0
Gerald Ford
Republican 2.4 1 1 1
Richard Nixon
Republican 5.6 76 55 15
The one valid criticism of "the liberal media" is that they are like a cat chasing a laser pointer when it comes to making stories out of Trump's bullshit. They are so easily distracted it's not even funny. You’re missing a little explainer in your table of facts. You’re talking administrations? You’re refusing to show methodologies? You’re leaving off impeachment’s and contempts of Congress? Really it sounds like you’re showing your own belief in biased news journalism by presenting extremely biased breakdowns. That proves the point I made, so thank you very much! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-AppointeesHaving a guy like Shep call Trump out and a couple instances of pushback from the Fox talking heads does not balance the scales. By and large, Fox pushes VERIFIABLY FALSE INFORMATION. Whether it's Seth Rich, the origins of the Russia investigation, information about Hillary, Information about Obama, the tax "cuts", immigration policy, the NK meeting, the Parkland shooting, or others, I have seen it with my own eyes. Does "Mueller crime family" ring a bell? How about "deep state efforts to bring down Trump"? It's one thing to have opinions, it's another to out and out lie. What I have not seen is WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc doing that. It's not a matter of me twisting or spinning, it's not a matter of some kind of liberal bias, and it's not the result of living in an echo chamber. Right-wing media just peddles falsehoods to protect their hold on the government and to make Trump look less crazy and incompetent than he is. On Fox now: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/16/trump-says-ig-report-totally-destroys-comey-reveals-dark-and-dangerous-period-in-us-history.htmlSee, Fox carefully uses the President's words and offers no clarification. His hyperbolic language is left to stand on its own. Trump supporters will watch this and believe it. They neglect to mention that Comey's actions in 2016 helped Trump win the election, nor do they mention that the Strzok and Page messages have no bearing on anything, as they were opinions which resulted in no action. Seth Rich: FALSE http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/01/media/rod-wheeler-seth-rich-fox-news-lawsuit/index.htmlUranium story: FALSE http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-1117-alt-fact-uranium-one-20171115-story.htmlMueller crime family: FALSE http://www.newsweek.com/trump-promotes-hannity-episode-describes-mueller-mob-boss-deep-state-crime-883075Strzok/Page/Comey: FALSE http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/14/mark-levin-ig-report-anti-trump-bias-fbi-and-department-justiceRussia investigation/spying: FALSE https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/22/17039902/fox-news-mueller-probe-steele-dossierI could sit and put together probably hundreds of instances where Fox was dishonest by omission, or even explicitly dishonest. Not so for other media outlets. What Fox does is damaging to democracy because it disguises distortions and lies as fact.
I've seen WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC stories with outright lies to push their own agendas.
Those are just some that came to mind, but there are certainly more. Like caged children suddenly became a national crisis once people found out Trump was making it worse this isn't a Republican problem but a US problem (and probably elsewhere around the world).
It's really amazing what a little process and beurocacy does to get people on board with atrocious treatment of their fellow humans.
On June 19 2018 04:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So are we just going to ignore a certain treaty signed by over 100 countries including Russia, and China? Also the fact that today's tech can't possibly do anything with this announcement. Show nested quote +Donald Trump said on Monday he would direct the Pentagon to create a “space force” as a new branch of the US military to shore up American dominance in space.
Trump claimed that the plan will ensure that America, which plans a return to the moon and a mission to Mars, stays ahead of China and Russia in any new space race. But it is likely to raise fears over the militarisation of space and prompted a slew of Twitter parodies featuring Star Trek and Star Wars.
“Very importantly, I’m hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” the president said at the White House.
“That’s a big statement. We are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force – separate but equal. It is going to be something so important.”
Trump asked Gen Joseph Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to carry out the assignment. Dunford replied: “We got it.”
The president added: “Let’s go get it, general. But that’s the importance that we give it. We’re going to have the space force.”
The president was speaking at the third meeting of the National Space Council, revived after a quarter of a century. He was joined by Mike Pence, the new Nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon.
But there was a sceptical reaction from Bill Nelson, the Democratic senator for Florida, home of Cape Canaveral. He tweeted: “The president told a US general to create a new Space Force as 6th branch of military today, which generals tell me they don’t want. Thankfully the president can’t do it without Congress because now is NOT the time to rip the Air Force apart. Too many important missions at stake.”
During his remarks, Trump promised that America will always be first in space and that national pride is at stake. “It’s going to be important monetarily and militarily,” he added. “But so important for right up here – the psyche. We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us.”
He insisted: “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. So important.”
Trump has floated the idea of a space force before but met both mockery and high-level resistance. Last October, his own defence secretary Jim Mattis wrote in a memo: “I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
On Monday Trump also signed a policy directive for reducing satellite clutter in space. It sets up new guidelines for satellite design and operation to avoid collisions and spacecraft breakups. Source
I think this will totally work so long as the Space Force is actually just ex NBA players/cartoons playing a basketball against alien monstars.
|
On June 19 2018 04:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So are we just going to ignore a certain treaty signed by over 100 countries including Russia, and China? Also the fact that today's tech can't possibly do anything with this announcement. Show nested quote +Donald Trump said on Monday he would direct the Pentagon to create a “space force” as a new branch of the US military to shore up American dominance in space.
Trump claimed that the plan will ensure that America, which plans a return to the moon and a mission to Mars, stays ahead of China and Russia in any new space race. But it is likely to raise fears over the militarisation of space and prompted a slew of Twitter parodies featuring Star Trek and Star Wars.
“Very importantly, I’m hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” the president said at the White House.
“That’s a big statement. We are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force – separate but equal. It is going to be something so important.”
Trump asked Gen Joseph Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to carry out the assignment. Dunford replied: “We got it.”
The president added: “Let’s go get it, general. But that’s the importance that we give it. We’re going to have the space force.”
The president was speaking at the third meeting of the National Space Council, revived after a quarter of a century. He was joined by Mike Pence, the new Nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon.
But there was a sceptical reaction from Bill Nelson, the Democratic senator for Florida, home of Cape Canaveral. He tweeted: “The president told a US general to create a new Space Force as 6th branch of military today, which generals tell me they don’t want. Thankfully the president can’t do it without Congress because now is NOT the time to rip the Air Force apart. Too many important missions at stake.”
During his remarks, Trump promised that America will always be first in space and that national pride is at stake. “It’s going to be important monetarily and militarily,” he added. “But so important for right up here – the psyche. We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us.”
He insisted: “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. So important.”
Trump has floated the idea of a space force before but met both mockery and high-level resistance. Last October, his own defence secretary Jim Mattis wrote in a memo: “I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
On Monday Trump also signed a policy directive for reducing satellite clutter in space. It sets up new guidelines for satellite design and operation to avoid collisions and spacecraft breakups. Source
I think my favorite part is Trump's use of "separate but equal". Almost as if everyone remembers how that turned out except Trump. Seriously though, what the fuck are we gonna do with a space force? Do we have satellite weapons that I've never heard of?
|
On June 19 2018 04:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 02:53 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 23:31 Velr wrote:
Diplomacy back in those days also pretty much was:
"Surrender or we kill you in the most horrific ways."
Yeah, Alexander, the Romans but also Ghengis Khan were great Dealmakers. Funniily enough, Ghengis genuinely was. The Mongol Empire was a work of brilliance. I don't get this especially from a brit. The mongol empire bearly lasted three generations before rapidly disintegrating along religious and cultural lines. They didn't even build or leave anything. The silk road wasn't created by then and was managed by others during the time they could defend it. For all the land they conquered they didnt have a real hold on much. The russians were rebellious until one became strong enough to stare them down. The turks that fled before them paved the way for multiple massively successful sucsessor states. The chinese resisted until their rulers became as chinese as they were. Siberia was nothing but wasteland stayed wasteland and is currently wasteland. They took from the world much more then they gave especially from the middle east.
I would say that Chinggis was brilliant but his institutions did not survive him. He did meritocracy in a period and region where it wasn't adopted to that degree. Made alliances, learnt siege warfare and used terror to make future conquests easier.
He was not the best administrator and didn't have a country built up to support a regime that he then slowly expanded. Alexander had a more stable base and his reign collapsed much faster but that might be due to age they died at and how that secured power.
|
On June 19 2018 04:08 Jockmcplop wrote:https://www.quilliaminternational.com/southern-poverty-law-center-inc-admits-it-was-wrong/Show nested quote +MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA — The Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. has apologized to Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in its controversial Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. In a public statement, the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen, explained that “Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.” Watch Mr. Cohen’s complete statement at https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists. The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism. “With the help of everyone who contributed to our litigation fund, we were able to fight back against the Regressive Left and show them that moderate Muslims will not be silenced,” said Nawaz. “We will continue to combat extremists by defying Muslim stereotypes, calling out fundamentalism in our own communities, and speaking out against anti-Muslim hate.” The SPLC has had to apologize for wrongly labeling people extremists. This is a victory for people who want sensible political debate around things like Islamic extremism and racism, and a loss for those who want to kill debate with labels. I'm posting this here because I remember being in quite a heated discussion in the last thread about the SPLC and a perception that they can do no wrong.
The SPLC and the courts can both be wrong. Settlements can also be wrong. I don’t know the full details of the case, but that thing settled very quickly and got him a full retraction and some money. So SPLC didn’t want to deal with the case. Or something else. But it is over and he is vindicated as not being a hate group.
My opinion on Maajid Nawaz and his career is right wing show business is unchanged however. For someone who is against anti-Muslim bigotry, he is sure championed by a lot of bigots.
|
On June 19 2018 04:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So are we just going to ignore a certain treaty signed by over 100 countries including Russia, and China? Also the fact that today's tech can't possibly do anything with this announcement. Show nested quote +Donald Trump said on Monday he would direct the Pentagon to create a “space force” as a new branch of the US military to shore up American dominance in space.
Trump claimed that the plan will ensure that America, which plans a return to the moon and a mission to Mars, stays ahead of China and Russia in any new space race. But it is likely to raise fears over the militarisation of space and prompted a slew of Twitter parodies featuring Star Trek and Star Wars.
“Very importantly, I’m hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” the president said at the White House.
“That’s a big statement. We are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force – separate but equal. It is going to be something so important.”
Trump asked Gen Joseph Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to carry out the assignment. Dunford replied: “We got it.”
The president added: “Let’s go get it, general. But that’s the importance that we give it. We’re going to have the space force.”
The president was speaking at the third meeting of the National Space Council, revived after a quarter of a century. He was joined by Mike Pence, the new Nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon.
But there was a sceptical reaction from Bill Nelson, the Democratic senator for Florida, home of Cape Canaveral. He tweeted: “The president told a US general to create a new Space Force as 6th branch of military today, which generals tell me they don’t want. Thankfully the president can’t do it without Congress because now is NOT the time to rip the Air Force apart. Too many important missions at stake.”
During his remarks, Trump promised that America will always be first in space and that national pride is at stake. “It’s going to be important monetarily and militarily,” he added. “But so important for right up here – the psyche. We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us.”
He insisted: “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. So important.”
Trump has floated the idea of a space force before but met both mockery and high-level resistance. Last October, his own defence secretary Jim Mattis wrote in a memo: “I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
On Monday Trump also signed a policy directive for reducing satellite clutter in space. It sets up new guidelines for satellite design and operation to avoid collisions and spacecraft breakups. Source
Terrible, terrible name. Couldn't we have asked GW for permission to use Astra Militarum? Or Space Marines at least? Missed opportunity.
|
On June 19 2018 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 04:08 Jockmcplop wrote:https://www.quilliaminternational.com/southern-poverty-law-center-inc-admits-it-was-wrong/MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA — The Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. has apologized to Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in its controversial Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. In a public statement, the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen, explained that “Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.” Watch Mr. Cohen’s complete statement at https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists. The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism. “With the help of everyone who contributed to our litigation fund, we were able to fight back against the Regressive Left and show them that moderate Muslims will not be silenced,” said Nawaz. “We will continue to combat extremists by defying Muslim stereotypes, calling out fundamentalism in our own communities, and speaking out against anti-Muslim hate.” The SPLC has had to apologize for wrongly labeling people extremists. This is a victory for people who want sensible political debate around things like Islamic extremism and racism, and a loss for those who want to kill debate with labels. I'm posting this here because I remember being in quite a heated discussion in the last thread about the SPLC and a perception that they can do no wrong. The SPLC and the courts can both be wrong. Settlements can also be wrong. I don’t know the full details of the case, but that thing settled very quickly and got him a full retraction and some money. So SPLC didn’t want to deal with the case. Or something else. But it is over and he is vindicated as not being a hate group.
My opinion on Maajid Nawaz and his career is right wing show business is unchanged however. For someone who is against anti-Muslim bigotry, he is sure championed by a lot of bigots.
The only reason you think that he's right wing is because of a narrative designed to make you think that, which is exactly what he's fighting against here. He's a member of the Liberal Democrats, who are basically slightly to the left of American Democrats. He's pretty much center left on most things, but is critical of Islam so he gets put in the same 'right wing show business' box as people ranging from Peterson to Weinstein. Its lazy thinking, because he's only to the right on maybe one or two issues.
You can hear him having passionate arguments with islamophobes on his radio show, but because he has his own criticisms, suddenly he's right wing.
This is the exact discussion I had before about the issue, whereby someone actually gave this SPLC article as EVIDENCE that he's right wing. I'm glad they decided to apologize for that because I feel vindicated.
|
On June 19 2018 04:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 02:53 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 23:31 Velr wrote:
Diplomacy back in those days also pretty much was:
"Surrender or we kill you in the most horrific ways."
Yeah, Alexander, the Romans but also Ghengis Khan were great Dealmakers. Funniily enough, Ghengis genuinely was. The Mongol Empire was a work of brilliance. I don't get this especially from a brit. The mongol empire bearly lasted three generations before rapidly disintegrating along religious and cultural lines. They didn't even build or leave anything. The silk road wasn't created by then and was managed by others during the time they could defend it. For all the land they conquered they didnt have a real hold on much. The russians were rebellious until one became strong enough to stare them down. The turks that fled before them paved the way for multiple massively successful sucsessor states. The chinese resisted until their rulers became as chinese as they were. Siberia was nothing but wasteland stayed wasteland and is currently wasteland. They took from the world much more then they gave especially from the middle east.
I see what you mean, but what I mean is that Ghengis managed to unite the Mongol tribes like no-one ever before and leverage them to form an Empire along lines that his people could rule. Bear in mind the Mongols weren't well-suited to actually occupying territory.
So I meant it literally. Genghis was a great dealmaker in terms both of getting the Mongols on the same page and getting nations to fall in line without destroying everything.
But yes, terrible at building stuff. We built a better empire, if not bigger. But Genghis gets credit for making so much out of a lot of chaos.
|
On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no... But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids... attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?"
Um... YES!?!?!?
On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31979/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiro
Have a look at the pictures in this article... It doesn't really fit your analogy.
Furthermore, from the article:
"Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum. This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals."
On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation.
On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges
I think your statements are misleading. But if that's wrong, I'd like to know how.
|
On June 19 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 04:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 19 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:On June 19 2018 01:23 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever. See, already we have disagreements at who’s the most biased and reports factual information. You’re wrong. Their opinion shows are just as bad. Their news reporting is just as bad and sometimes worse depending on the host. You’re just biased to believe your own side is actually pretty good, without looking critically at how they manipulate with half truths, outright lies, buried ledes, and opinion spin. That’s another reason why fairness doctrine can and would fail: no neutral arbiter; it’s all a matter of opinion. Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.
This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.
There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true. Yep. I can also show you instances on Fox where special report or Fox News Sunday went against Trump and mouthpieces. I’m no fan of the channel either. You’re just selectively playing Fox’s worst against lefty media’s best and trying to draw conclusions. And you’re failing. Similarly, debates of these type generally fall into pointless areas because defenders of left-leaning or left-wing media institutions refuse to admit or even see the problems in their ranks, but will point out everything on the right just fine. Partisanship from beginning to end. Years in office/Criminal Indictments/Convictions/Prison Sentences
Barack Obama
Democratic 8 0 0 0
George W. Bush
Republican 8 16 16 9
Bill Clinton
Democratic 8 2 1 1
George H. W. Bush
Republican 4 1 1 1
Ronald Reagan
Republican 8 26 16 8
Jimmy Carter
Democratic 4 1 0 0
Gerald Ford
Republican 2.4 1 1 1
Richard Nixon
Republican 5.6 76 55 15
The one valid criticism of "the liberal media" is that they are like a cat chasing a laser pointer when it comes to making stories out of Trump's bullshit. They are so easily distracted it's not even funny. You’re missing a little explainer in your table of facts. You’re talking administrations? You’re refusing to show methodologies? You’re leaving off impeachment’s and contempts of Congress? Really it sounds like you’re showing your own belief in biased news journalism by presenting extremely biased breakdowns. That proves the point I made, so thank you very much! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-AppointeesHaving a guy like Shep call Trump out and a couple instances of pushback from the Fox talking heads does not balance the scales. By and large, Fox pushes VERIFIABLY FALSE INFORMATION. Whether it's Seth Rich, the origins of the Russia investigation, information about Hillary, Information about Obama, the tax "cuts", immigration policy, the NK meeting, the Parkland shooting, or others, I have seen it with my own eyes. Does "Mueller crime family" ring a bell? How about "deep state efforts to bring down Trump"? It's one thing to have opinions, it's another to out and out lie. What I have not seen is WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc doing that. It's not a matter of me twisting or spinning, it's not a matter of some kind of liberal bias, and it's not the result of living in an echo chamber. Right-wing media just peddles falsehoods to protect their hold on the government and to make Trump look less crazy and incompetent than he is. On Fox now: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/16/trump-says-ig-report-totally-destroys-comey-reveals-dark-and-dangerous-period-in-us-history.htmlSee, Fox carefully uses the President's words and offers no clarification. His hyperbolic language is left to stand on its own. Trump supporters will watch this and believe it. They neglect to mention that Comey's actions in 2016 helped Trump win the election, nor do they mention that the Strzok and Page messages have no bearing on anything, as they were opinions which resulted in no action. Seth Rich: FALSE http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/01/media/rod-wheeler-seth-rich-fox-news-lawsuit/index.htmlUranium story: FALSE http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-1117-alt-fact-uranium-one-20171115-story.htmlMueller crime family: FALSE http://www.newsweek.com/trump-promotes-hannity-episode-describes-mueller-mob-boss-deep-state-crime-883075Strzok/Page/Comey: FALSE http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/14/mark-levin-ig-report-anti-trump-bias-fbi-and-department-justiceRussia investigation/spying: FALSE https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/22/17039902/fox-news-mueller-probe-steele-dossierI could sit and put together probably hundreds of instances where Fox was dishonest by omission, or even explicitly dishonest. Not so for other media outlets. What Fox does is damaging to democracy because it disguises distortions and lies as fact. I've seen WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC stories with outright lies to push their own agendas. Those are just some that came to mind, but there are certainly more. Like caged children suddenly became a national crisis once people found out Trump was making it worse this isn't a Republican problem but a US problem (and probably elsewhere around the world). It's really amazing what a little process and beurocacy does to get people on board with atrocious treatment of their fellow humans. Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 04:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So are we just going to ignore a certain treaty signed by over 100 countries including Russia, and China? Also the fact that today's tech can't possibly do anything with this announcement. Donald Trump said on Monday he would direct the Pentagon to create a “space force” as a new branch of the US military to shore up American dominance in space.
Trump claimed that the plan will ensure that America, which plans a return to the moon and a mission to Mars, stays ahead of China and Russia in any new space race. But it is likely to raise fears over the militarisation of space and prompted a slew of Twitter parodies featuring Star Trek and Star Wars.
“Very importantly, I’m hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” the president said at the White House.
“That’s a big statement. We are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force – separate but equal. It is going to be something so important.”
Trump asked Gen Joseph Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to carry out the assignment. Dunford replied: “We got it.”
The president added: “Let’s go get it, general. But that’s the importance that we give it. We’re going to have the space force.”
The president was speaking at the third meeting of the National Space Council, revived after a quarter of a century. He was joined by Mike Pence, the new Nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon.
But there was a sceptical reaction from Bill Nelson, the Democratic senator for Florida, home of Cape Canaveral. He tweeted: “The president told a US general to create a new Space Force as 6th branch of military today, which generals tell me they don’t want. Thankfully the president can’t do it without Congress because now is NOT the time to rip the Air Force apart. Too many important missions at stake.”
During his remarks, Trump promised that America will always be first in space and that national pride is at stake. “It’s going to be important monetarily and militarily,” he added. “But so important for right up here – the psyche. We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us.”
He insisted: “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. So important.”
Trump has floated the idea of a space force before but met both mockery and high-level resistance. Last October, his own defence secretary Jim Mattis wrote in a memo: “I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
On Monday Trump also signed a policy directive for reducing satellite clutter in space. It sets up new guidelines for satellite design and operation to avoid collisions and spacecraft breakups. Source I think this will totally work so long as the Space Force is actually just ex NBA players/cartoons playing a basketball against alien monstars.
So you agree with Danglars' assertion that literally everything is as bad as FOX news, there is no gradient, everything is the worst?
On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:
Would you care to amend your statement? Is Shapiro wrong? Am I misunderstanding something?
Given you mentioned Ben Shapiro there's a fairly high chance that he is, but I'll leave it to someone else to investigate for sure.
|
On June 19 2018 04:08 Jockmcplop wrote:https://www.quilliaminternational.com/southern-poverty-law-center-inc-admits-it-was-wrong/Show nested quote +MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA — The Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. has apologized to Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in its controversial Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. In a public statement, the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen, explained that “Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.” Watch Mr. Cohen’s complete statement at https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists. The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism. “With the help of everyone who contributed to our litigation fund, we were able to fight back against the Regressive Left and show them that moderate Muslims will not be silenced,” said Nawaz. “We will continue to combat extremists by defying Muslim stereotypes, calling out fundamentalism in our own communities, and speaking out against anti-Muslim hate.” The SPLC has had to apologize for wrongly labeling people extremists. This is a victory for people who want sensible political debate around things like Islamic extremism and racism, and a loss for those who want to kill debate with labels. I'm posting this here because I remember being in quite a heated discussion in the last thread about the SPLC and a perception that they can do no wrong.
I disagree with your conclusion;
SPLC may have been wrong on its specific accusation, but it's not a win for sensible political debate in general.
Also, that Nawaz goes on to immediately use the term Regressive left shows that it's very much a win for people who want to kill debate with labels. it's just a question of which labels won this fight.
and your memory of what happened in the last thread seems wrong to me; but that would'nt be surprising, as human memory is notoriously complex and inaccurate, so people remembering the same thing very differently is to be expected.
I wish I could find some better sources on the topic as well, but the searches I've run are all rather trashy or are decent, but so bare-bones as to provide little insight on the matter.
|
On June 19 2018 04:56 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2018 04:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 19 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:On June 19 2018 01:23 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever. See, already we have disagreements at who’s the most biased and reports factual information. You’re wrong. Their opinion shows are just as bad. Their news reporting is just as bad and sometimes worse depending on the host. You’re just biased to believe your own side is actually pretty good, without looking critically at how they manipulate with half truths, outright lies, buried ledes, and opinion spin. That’s another reason why fairness doctrine can and would fail: no neutral arbiter; it’s all a matter of opinion. Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.
This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.
There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true. Yep. I can also show you instances on Fox where special report or Fox News Sunday went against Trump and mouthpieces. I’m no fan of the channel either. You’re just selectively playing Fox’s worst against lefty media’s best and trying to draw conclusions. And you’re failing. Similarly, debates of these type generally fall into pointless areas because defenders of left-leaning or left-wing media institutions refuse to admit or even see the problems in their ranks, but will point out everything on the right just fine. Partisanship from beginning to end. Years in office/Criminal Indictments/Convictions/Prison Sentences
Barack Obama
Democratic 8 0 0 0
George W. Bush
Republican 8 16 16 9
Bill Clinton
Democratic 8 2 1 1
George H. W. Bush
Republican 4 1 1 1
Ronald Reagan
Republican 8 26 16 8
Jimmy Carter
Democratic 4 1 0 0
Gerald Ford
Republican 2.4 1 1 1
Richard Nixon
Republican 5.6 76 55 15
The one valid criticism of "the liberal media" is that they are like a cat chasing a laser pointer when it comes to making stories out of Trump's bullshit. They are so easily distracted it's not even funny. You’re missing a little explainer in your table of facts. You’re talking administrations? You’re refusing to show methodologies? You’re leaving off impeachment’s and contempts of Congress? Really it sounds like you’re showing your own belief in biased news journalism by presenting extremely biased breakdowns. That proves the point I made, so thank you very much! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-AppointeesHaving a guy like Shep call Trump out and a couple instances of pushback from the Fox talking heads does not balance the scales. By and large, Fox pushes VERIFIABLY FALSE INFORMATION. Whether it's Seth Rich, the origins of the Russia investigation, information about Hillary, Information about Obama, the tax "cuts", immigration policy, the NK meeting, the Parkland shooting, or others, I have seen it with my own eyes. Does "Mueller crime family" ring a bell? How about "deep state efforts to bring down Trump"? It's one thing to have opinions, it's another to out and out lie. What I have not seen is WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc doing that. It's not a matter of me twisting or spinning, it's not a matter of some kind of liberal bias, and it's not the result of living in an echo chamber. Right-wing media just peddles falsehoods to protect their hold on the government and to make Trump look less crazy and incompetent than he is. On Fox now: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/16/trump-says-ig-report-totally-destroys-comey-reveals-dark-and-dangerous-period-in-us-history.htmlSee, Fox carefully uses the President's words and offers no clarification. His hyperbolic language is left to stand on its own. Trump supporters will watch this and believe it. They neglect to mention that Comey's actions in 2016 helped Trump win the election, nor do they mention that the Strzok and Page messages have no bearing on anything, as they were opinions which resulted in no action. Seth Rich: FALSE http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/01/media/rod-wheeler-seth-rich-fox-news-lawsuit/index.htmlUranium story: FALSE http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-1117-alt-fact-uranium-one-20171115-story.htmlMueller crime family: FALSE http://www.newsweek.com/trump-promotes-hannity-episode-describes-mueller-mob-boss-deep-state-crime-883075Strzok/Page/Comey: FALSE http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/14/mark-levin-ig-report-anti-trump-bias-fbi-and-department-justiceRussia investigation/spying: FALSE https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/22/17039902/fox-news-mueller-probe-steele-dossierI could sit and put together probably hundreds of instances where Fox was dishonest by omission, or even explicitly dishonest. Not so for other media outlets. What Fox does is damaging to democracy because it disguises distortions and lies as fact. I've seen WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC stories with outright lies to push their own agendas. Those are just some that came to mind, but there are certainly more. Like caged children suddenly became a national crisis once people found out Trump was making it worse this isn't a Republican problem but a US problem (and probably elsewhere around the world). It's really amazing what a little process and beurocacy does to get people on board with atrocious treatment of their fellow humans. On June 19 2018 04:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So are we just going to ignore a certain treaty signed by over 100 countries including Russia, and China? Also the fact that today's tech can't possibly do anything with this announcement. Donald Trump said on Monday he would direct the Pentagon to create a “space force” as a new branch of the US military to shore up American dominance in space.
Trump claimed that the plan will ensure that America, which plans a return to the moon and a mission to Mars, stays ahead of China and Russia in any new space race. But it is likely to raise fears over the militarisation of space and prompted a slew of Twitter parodies featuring Star Trek and Star Wars.
“Very importantly, I’m hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” the president said at the White House.
“That’s a big statement. We are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force – separate but equal. It is going to be something so important.”
Trump asked Gen Joseph Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to carry out the assignment. Dunford replied: “We got it.”
The president added: “Let’s go get it, general. But that’s the importance that we give it. We’re going to have the space force.”
The president was speaking at the third meeting of the National Space Council, revived after a quarter of a century. He was joined by Mike Pence, the new Nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon.
But there was a sceptical reaction from Bill Nelson, the Democratic senator for Florida, home of Cape Canaveral. He tweeted: “The president told a US general to create a new Space Force as 6th branch of military today, which generals tell me they don’t want. Thankfully the president can’t do it without Congress because now is NOT the time to rip the Air Force apart. Too many important missions at stake.”
During his remarks, Trump promised that America will always be first in space and that national pride is at stake. “It’s going to be important monetarily and militarily,” he added. “But so important for right up here – the psyche. We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us.”
He insisted: “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. So important.”
Trump has floated the idea of a space force before but met both mockery and high-level resistance. Last October, his own defence secretary Jim Mattis wrote in a memo: “I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
On Monday Trump also signed a policy directive for reducing satellite clutter in space. It sets up new guidelines for satellite design and operation to avoid collisions and spacecraft breakups. Source I think this will totally work so long as the Space Force is actually just ex NBA players/cartoons playing a basketball against alien monstars. So you agree with Danglars' assertion that literally everything is as bad as FOX news, there is no gradient, everything is the worst? Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:
Would you care to amend your statement? Is Shapiro wrong? Am I misunderstanding something? Given you mentioned Ben Shapiro there's a fairly high chance that he is, but I'll leave it to someone else to investigate for sure.
I think the gradient is used to justify liberal outlets badness. It's the same thing that tells Democrats to support a Trump supporter that backs his immigration plan. Because he's to the left of the alternative on the gradient.
"These news outlets lie and manipulate, but it's not as bad as Fox so I support them."
Both of them being unacceptable is also an option.
|
On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no... But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids... attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?" Um... YES!?!?!? Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree? https://www.dailywire.com/news/31979/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiroHave a look at the pictures in this article... It doesn't really fit your analogy. Furthermore, from the article: "Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum. This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals." Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges I think your statements are misleading. But if that's wrong, I'd like to know how.
The Trump administration purposely implemented a change in April that has resulted in many more families being separated than before. It’s being done as a deterrent. It’s attributable to the Trump admin.
|
On June 19 2018 05:14 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no... But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids... attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?" Um... YES!?!?!? On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree? https://www.dailywire.com/news/31979/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiroHave a look at the pictures in this article... It doesn't really fit your analogy. Furthermore, from the article: "Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum. This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals." On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges I think your statements are misleading. But if that's wrong, I'd like to know how. The Trump administration purposely implemented a change in April that has resulted in many more families being separated than before. It’s being done as a deterrent. It’s attributable to the Trump admin.
What is attributable to Trump is that it has increased and the "deterrent" aspect has been emphasized. What can't be attributed to him (exclusively) is the inhumane separations and caging of children.
That was happening long before he got there and most of the people mad about it now had anything to say about it.
|
On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no... But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids... attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?" Um... YES!?!?!? Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree? https://www.dailywire.com/news/31979/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiroHave a look at the pictures in this article... It doesn't really fit your analogy. Furthermore, from the article: "Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum. This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals." Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges I think your statements are misleading. But if that's wrong, I'd like to know how.
Ben Shapiro is distorting the facts to make it seem like this isn’t a policy change, and he is doing to knowingly. He is effectively lying. Asylum seekers often cross borders illegal in their efforts to seek asylum because they fear for their lives. This is how many asylum seekers enter the US, either through human smuggling due to political oppression or due to fear of violence back home. They are running, seeking asylum and being detained by ICE due to crossing the border illegal, which is a minor crime.
This NPR story from this morning covers it:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the plan in April, and expounded on it in May, saying his Department of Justice would partner with Homeland Security to prosecute anyone illegally crossing the southwest border and separate children from parents.
"If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple," said Sessions. "If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
Under the new policy, DHS says about 2,000 minors were separated from their "alleged adult guardians" between mid-April and the end of May, although Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Sunday that the number "may well be higher" than that.
"What the administration has decided to do is to separate children from their parents to try to send a message that if you cross the border with children, your children are going to be ripped away from you," Collins said, on CBS' Face The Nation. "That's traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims, and it is contrary to our values in this country."
An anonymous White House official told The Washington Post this week that Trump is hoping to use the harsh policy as leverage to force Democrats to cave to his other immigration demands, like funding a border wall and lessening the amount of people allowed to immigrate to the U.S. legally. But senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway pushed back on that notion Sunday.
"I certainly don't want anybody to use these kids as leverage," she said on NBC's Meet The Press. "Nobody likes seeing babies ripped from their mothers' arms, from their mothers' wombs, frankly, but we have to make sure that DHS' laws are understood through the soundbite culture that we live in."
Also:
DHS: Nearly 2,000 Children Separated From Adults At Border In 6 Weeks
'We Do Not Have A Policy' Of Separating Families, DHS Head Says, Contradicting Policy
There is a camp at the border in Texas. It is a tent with three sides. The sides face towards the US so our citizens can’t see in. The open side faces Mexico so they can see the children in cages. Border patrol objected to the use of the word cages this morning, saying that it wasn’t inaccurate, but that the children were not being treated like animals. They have bar code bracelets.
Ben Shapiro is lying to you. Please don’t fall for it.
|
On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no... But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids... attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?" Um... YES!?!?!?
Clever use of ellipses to eliminate relevant context, but selective quoting won't win you any points here.
Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree? https://www.dailywire.com/news/31979/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiroHave a look at the pictures in this article... It doesn't really fit your analogy.
Did I miss something in the article, or are those just pictures of overcrowded detention facilities? What does that have to do with separating children from parents? I'm not gonna claim immigrants were never treated badly before Trump, nor did anyone else in this discussion that I recall. The claim is that Trump implemented a new policy of prosecuting certain groups of immigrants in ways they previously weren't prosecuted, with the effect of separating a lot of children from their families. That new policy is what is being discussed.
Furthermore, from the article:
"Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum. This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals."
But nobody here said they were punished specifically for being asylum seekers. They're punished for being here. Being an asylum seeker used to be grounds for an exception to be made; Trump is no longer respecting that.
I don't know enough about immigration law to be certain, but I strongly suspect Shapiro is being intentionally dense in suggesting immigrants should come to point of entry, request asylum, and await processing by ICE. Those people almost certainly fill out some forms, leave contact info, and then never hear anything about it again. It's like going to the ER for non-emergent care (a common practice in the US): it's not the path you're supposed to follow, but sometimes it's the only way to get your case heard. That's why most asylum seekers often just come across, then tell border patrol "yes, hello, bring me in please, I am an asylum seeker."
Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges I think your statements are misleading. But if that's wrong, I'd like to know how.
What's misleading? Shapiro's article doesn't even contradict what I said. He just insists "Trump's just enforcing the law." That's true, in that he's prosecuting based on pre-existing laws, but he's doing it against groups which were not previously prosecuted as felons. Here, from the Shapiro piece you cited:
If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals. If they choose deportation, they aren’t separated from their kids; if they choose to apply for asylum, they stay in the country longer than 20 days, and their kids have to be removed by operation of law.
People who entered the country and applied for asylum weren't previously charged as felons, where they would be separated from their kids. Now they are. That's a change Trump made, which is causing the current ballooning numbers of kids being separated from their parents, which is causing the current uproar. What's not to get about this?
|
On June 19 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Ben Shapiro is distorting the facts to make it seem like this isn’t a policy change, and he is doing to knowingly. He is effectively lying.
We know there has been a policy change. I'm aware that the separating of families is happening more now with the policy change. From the exchange you and I have had so far on this discussion, YOU are the one lying about the policy change. It's been several posts back and forth, and I'm still not sure you would admit that the separating of families happened under Obama.
You are misunderstanding what he is saying and calling it lies.
On June 19 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Asylum seekers often cross borders illegal in their efforts to seek asylum because they fear for their lives
Why don't they go to an entry point? They think they'll be murdered by ICE at the entry point?
I'm not sure how you're able to tell which ones have a credible fear for their lives vs the ones who don't but say they do. Any insight into how this works?
On June 19 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:
This is how many asylum seekers enter the US, either through human smuggling
Didn't know you supported human trafficking. I wasn't quite expecting that.
On June 19 2018 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
What is attributable to Trump is that it has increased and the "deterrent" aspect has been emphasized. What can't be attributed to him (exclusively) is the inhumane separations and caging of children.
That was happening long before he got there and most of the people mad about it now had anything to say about it.
Thank you
Edit:
On June 19 2018 05:57 ChristianS wrote:
Clever use of ellipses to eliminate relevant context, but selective quoting won't win you any points here.
Here's the original for you:
On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no, since this situation is a direct result of an Trump-era policy. But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids (for instance, in cases of abuse) under Obama, attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?"
What "relevant context" did I cut out that would have changed the message of the shortened quote I posted?
"Clever use of ellipses"... What a joke.
|
On June 19 2018 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 05:14 Doodsmack wrote:On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no... But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids... attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?" Um... YES!?!?!? On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree? https://www.dailywire.com/news/31979/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiroHave a look at the pictures in this article... It doesn't really fit your analogy. Furthermore, from the article: "Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum. This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals." On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges I think your statements are misleading. But if that's wrong, I'd like to know how. The Trump administration purposely implemented a change in April that has resulted in many more families being separated than before. It’s being done as a deterrent. It’s attributable to the Trump admin. What is attributable to Trump is that it has increased and the "deterrent" aspect has been emphasized. What can't be attributed to him (exclusively) is the inhumane separations and caging of children. That was happening long before he got there and most of the people mad about it now had anything to say about it.
How about some actual numbers and citations?
I'm trying to Google any kind of numbers to support your claim, and I'm not finding anything. Every article says that separations were "rare" or "few", which is unquantifiable.
I also see history showing a 1997 ruling that children must be released without unnecessary delay. A 2008 Bill (under Bush) that codified this in law. And a 2015 ruling that extended this to accompanied children as well, and their parents (the parents bit was overturned in a 2016 appeal).
|
On June 19 2018 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 05:14 Doodsmack wrote:On June 19 2018 04:54 PeTraSoHot wrote:On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no... But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids... attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?" Um... YES!?!?!? On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree? https://www.dailywire.com/news/31979/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiroHave a look at the pictures in this article... It doesn't really fit your analogy. Furthermore, from the article: "Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum. This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals." On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. On June 17 2018 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges I think your statements are misleading. But if that's wrong, I'd like to know how. The Trump administration purposely implemented a change in April that has resulted in many more families being separated than before. It’s being done as a deterrent. It’s attributable to the Trump admin. What is attributable to Trump is that it has increased and the "deterrent" aspect has been emphasized. What can't be attributed to him (exclusively) is the inhumane separations and caging of children. That was happening long before he got there and most of the people mad about it now had anything to say about it.
I haven't done a good job of keeping myself informed about the plight of illegal immigrants, and certainly haven't done much of anything to be an activist on their behalf. If that's your accusation, plead guilty on both counts.
But when a new policy of being crueler to groups people we weren't as cruel to before is implemented, that seems like a reasonable time to speak up about it, and I don't see why people shouldn't get to do so just because they haven't always been on a crusade for the cause.
|
On June 19 2018 05:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Ben Shapiro is distorting the facts to make it seem like this isn’t a policy change, and he is doing to knowingly. He is effectively lying. We know there has been a policy change. I'm aware that the separating of families is happening more now with the policy change. From the exchange you and I have had so far on this discussion, YOU are the one lying about the policy change. It's been several posts back and forth, and I'm still not sure you would admit that the separating of families happened under Obama. You are misunderstanding what he is saying and calling it lies. Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Asylum seekers often cross borders illegal in their efforts to seek asylum because they fear for their lives Why don't they go to an entry point? They think they'll be murdered by ICE at the entry point? I'm not sure how you're able to tell which ones have a credible fear for their lives vs the ones who don't but say they do. Any insight into how this works? Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:
This is how many asylum seekers enter the US, either through human smuggling Didn't know you supported human trafficking. I wasn't quite expecting that.
Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
What is attributable to Trump is that it has increased and the "deterrent" aspect has been emphasized. What can't be attributed to him (exclusively) is the inhumane separations and caging of children.
That was happening long before he got there and most of the people mad about it now had anything to say about it. Thank you
First off, if you are going to mischaracterize my statements, this discussion is over. I do not support human trafficking and you know it.
And the reason they are not going to a port of entry is that they are being turned away without being processed:
At the U.S. border, asylum seekers fleeing violence are told to come back later
The volunteers working with Pineda helped him create a sign that made clear he was seeking asylum, and they accompanied him and Riquelmer to the top of the Paso del Norte Bridge. That’s where CBP officers intercepted them.
Garcia said he was struck by the CBP supervisor’s explanation of why they couldn’t take in Pineda and his son. “This supervisor started using the word ‘humane,’ ” Garcia said. “He said, ‘You know, we have space capacity, we want to treat the people humanely; it is not humane to simply pile people up on top of each other.’ ”
The decision meant that Pineda and Riquelmer have slept for days on the streets of Ciudad Juárez, a place they do not know, Garcia said.
Historically, people crossing into the United States from Mexico at ports of entry don’t encounter CBP officers until they reach port facilities, which generally are several hundred feet from the international boundary. In recent weeks, CBP has placed officers feet or inches away from the boundary at El Paso and other crossings.
Annunciation House plans to train volunteers to monitor CBP actions at international bridges and attempt to escort asylum seekers to the port of entry, Garcia said.
Two aides to Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) witnessed Pineda’s attempt to reach the port of entry Sunday. O’Rourke said CBP lacks the desire to find additional capacity to handle fluctuations in asylum applications. “It’s a matter of U.S. law and it’s a matter of international law, and it’s a matter of doing the right thing. And it’s also, in the long view, what’s made this country great in the first place,” said O’Rourke, who is challenging Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in the November election.
“So part of what I want to do is find out what additional resources or authorities or direction the Department of Homeland Security needs to ensure it is following the law,” he said.
[Border arrests exceed 50,000 for third month in a row]
CBP has refused to provide data on how many asylum applications it is processing at ports of entry in El Paso and elsewhere along the border, so it’s difficult to assess the agency’s claim that ports are at capacity.
These people are asylum seekers, they don’t have any place to stay. So being told to wait is basically being told to camp in the elements until the entry port allows them in. Which will likely be never, because this isn’t about due process. This is about keeping immigrants out at all costs, even if they fear for their lives or they are children.
So again, Ben Shapiro is misleading people by omitting key facts, which is he aware of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
